Parma's Tactics Masterclass 16

[ron obvious 1,499]

As a strict determinist, I would say ''lucky'' events are really those where the chain of interacting causes & effects are too complex for scientific analysis. Thus they are logically impossible to predict.

What you can do is to reduce the unknowns to a minimum. We all saw the effect of a long ball booted over the top on Sunday, thus it is known & you can adopt strategies for dealing with it.

However, even then it''s not so simple, because dealing more effectively with that situation may lead to a reduction in goal scoring opportunities for yourself. Plus the exact flight of the long ball, if the defender deflects it into the path of an opponent or back to the goalie, or the way the ball bounces off an uneven pitch, all are factors which can be individually mitigated but have a cumulative devastating effect.

I''ll never forget the goal Germany scored against us when our defender brilliantly blocked a free kick, only to see it loop over Shilton''s flailing arms in the tiny space between his fingertips & the crossbar.

Nothing you can do about that - & changing playing style because of that sort of event is the worst possible thing to do. England had plenty of other reasons to change but that wasn''t one of them.

You try to predict every scenario possible & develop methods of dealing with them - of course, the better your players the more situations they will be able to deal with (NB ''better'' will depend on the problem you''re dealing with) - but stuff will happen. Who''d have it any other way!

[Nuff Said 5,089]

[quote user="ron obvious"]As a strict determinist, I would say ''lucky'' events are really those where the chain of interacting causes & effects are too complex for scientific analysis. Thus they are logically impossible to predict.

What you can do is to reduce the unknowns to a minimum. We all saw the effect of a long ball booted over the top on Sunday, thus it is known & you can adopt strategies for dealing with it.

However, even then it''s not so simple, because dealing more effectively with that situation may lead to a reduction in goal scoring opportunities for yourself. Plus the exact flight of the long ball, if the defender deflects it into the path of an opponent or back to the goalie, or the way the ball bounces off an uneven pitch, all are factors which can be individually mitigated but have a cumulative devastating effect.

I''ll never forget the goal Germany scored against us when our defender brilliantly blocked a free kick, only to see it loop over Shilton''s flailing arms in the tiny space between his fingertips & the crossbar.

Nothing you can do about that - & changing playing style because of that sort of event is the worst possible thing to do. England had plenty of other reasons to change but that wasn''t one of them.

You try to predict every scenario possible & develop methods of dealing with them - of course, the better your players the more situations they will be able to deal with (NB ''better'' will depend on the problem you''re dealing with) - but stuff will happen. Who''d have it any other way![/quote]I think Donald Rumsfeld said it best: "there are known knowns; there are things we know we know. We also know

there are known unknowns; that is to say we know there are some things

we do not know. But there are also unknown unknowns – the ones we don''t

know we don''t know."

There are known knowns.

These are things we know that we know. There are known unknowns. That

is to say, there are things that we know we don''t know. But there are

also unknown unknowns. There are things we don''t know we don''t know. Read more at: https://www.brainyquote.com/quotes/quotes/d/donaldrums148142.html

There are known knowns.

These are things we know that we know. There are known unknowns. That

is to say, there are things that we know we don''t know. But there are

also unknown unknowns. There are things we don''t know we don''t know. Read more at: https://www.brainyquote.com/quotes/quotes/d/donaldrums148142.html

[Nuff Said 5,089]

I didn''t know that was going to happen...

[PurpleCanary 5,554]

[quote user="Rock The Boat"]I was going to ask whether you guys thought that luck could be influenced or controlled to a teams advantage, but you already seem to be saying that the definition of lucky events include situations that can be prepared for. I''m not sure what I think about it.[/quote]RTB, certainly not my definition, or that of Ray, I think. It was the definition of luck in scoring goals used by these researchers quoted in The Numbers Game, to include events that were or were caused by defensive mistakes. On that absurd basis pretty much every goal in football history could be called lucky, since there is almost always something the defending side could have done better.These researchers would presumably mark Sunderland''s first goal down as lucky, because there was a defensive error, with Grabban anticipating the flick-on while the defender - in a commonplace situation that should have been prepared for - did not.

[westcoastcanary 173]

[quote user="Rock The Boat"]I was going to ask whether you guys thought that luck could be influenced or controlled to a teams advantage, but you already seem to be saying that the definition of lucky events include situations that can be prepared for. I''m not sure what I think about it.[/quote]

 It''s counter-productive to get hung up on the use of words, e.g. "luck". As I see it, the nub of the issue is the extent to which you as agent can, or can''t, control or influence the outcome of a given situation. So it is not really absurd to suggest that every goal in football history "could be called lucky", since factors outside the control of the scoring team always play a part and to that extent any goal depends on fortune. Far from being absurd, recognising the truth of this is absolutely essential. I''d put it like this: the objective is to minimise the extent to which you rely on fortune to achieve your objectives and, conversely, to maximise the extent to which your opponent is forced to rely on fortune to achieve his.

[nutty nigel 7,509]

[quote user="westcoastcanary"][quote user="Rock The Boat"]I was going to ask whether you guys thought that luck could be influenced or controlled to a teams advantage, but you already seem to be saying that the definition of lucky events include situations that can be prepared for. I''m not sure what I think about it.[/quote]

 It''s counter-productive to get hung up on the use of words, e.g. "luck". As I see it, the nub of the issue is the extent to which you as agent can, or can''t, control or influence the outcome of a given situation. So it is not really absurd to suggest that every goal in football history "could be called lucky", since factors outside the control of the scoring team always play a part and to that extent any goal depends on fortune. Far from being absurd, recognising the truth of this is absolutely essential. I''d put it like this: the objective is to minimise the extent to which you rely on fortune to achieve your objectives and, conversely, to maximise the extent to which your opponent is forced to rely on fortune to achieve his.

[/quote]

Thought provoking stuff. I am reminded of when I first heard stats in respect of tactics. This was Bobby Gould and Don Howe at Wimbledon where the stated aim was to get 172 reaches and 44 crosses in per game. A reach was was to reach the opponent''s final third 172 times per game. The idea was if you did that the chances are that you''d score a goal. Of course Wimbledon coupled that with going to the limits and further with aggression. But the point I''m sure the late Don Howe would make would be that every goal they scored, however it came about, had nothing to do with luck but was due to the 172 reaches and 44 crosses they were aiming for.

[Parma Ham's gone mouldy 2,219]

Plus ca change, plus ca change alors...

''It''s all about results'' they cried, ''this philosophy can''t work on a wet Tuesday in Rotherham with Championship grinders'' they feared, ''what about a plan B?'' they chorused.

0ur friend Mr Farke knows it''s a results business. He knows that football is a confidence game. He knows not all games are created equal.

In a startling, ruthless piece of realpolitik, 5 stark changes in personnel were made, the formation and philosophy was overhauled and the Carousel unplugged.

We saw a significantly more Prosaic approach, locking down the spaces, conceding possession and more acceptance of passive passages of play, reverting to known shapes and structures. A solid uncomplicated approach was the immediate refuge of players and manager.

Via the hindight results prism, there is much for fans to be happy about. Many unknown unknowns have been comfortingly revealed: The manager has a Plan B, tactical (and philosophical) flexibility are already in evidence, a somewhat rudimentary, quite English approach was embraced under (a little) pressure, there is no fear of making significant game-to-game personnel changes (even very early in the season), shape and approaches are not esoteric pretty-pattern-exclusive, Principles are (already) not inviolate.

My view is that - just like Sunderland - the outcome of this game could easily have been very different. I would argue that in terms of developing a style of play that is repeateable, ingrained, hard to play against, designed to increase raw playing asset value and of long-term benefit to achieving above average results from resources available what we saw on Sunday is superior to what we saw last night.

I am well aware that that is going to be a difficult position to defend to many.

All should be comforted by the fact that Farke also feels that way and took a realpolitik approach to last night''s game, regardless whether the much-heralded new philosophy took a thoroughly back seat in the process.

It may well be argued that Confidence to play the possession- based system is a pre-requisite and that Farke showed good grasp of human psychology and returned to simpler messages and shapes. It is very early for Mummy to be taking away the spinach and putting McDonalds back on the plate however.

It is entirely conceivable that playing a less-controlled, lower pressure, easier (though more random) way may have lifted some pressure from the players (arguably showing welcome hard-edged German pragmatism) and the view may be that the mental place the players were in pre-game helped define the revised strategy.

There is something a little more here for us however. The changes were actually reverting to the known.

Whilst Jerome and Watkins were poor on Sunday, Martin and Naismith a little unlucky to find themselves on the bench and Wildschut perhaps too inpredictable and chaotic for a prosaic shutting down of spaces (in theory), we actually didn''t really achieve the intention (certainly for the first half-hour or so where the intention and tactics often show themselves and their efficacy) clearly, we were not superior, not in control of the game, not ahead on the boxing scorecards and not achieving any measure of controlled, planned or defined supremacy. Unlike Sunday.

Plus ca change, plus ca reste le meme..

Wes is a game-changer and can have an effect on a match even when we are inferior. He unsettled teams and can produce moments and opportunities that unsettle the opposition and which they cannot adequately account for. The very definition of a Masterclass Weapon.

Oliveira is a dangerous striker, he looks to drop off, spin and shoot early. He is greedy, goal-orientated, not a particular team-player and absolutely fundamental to us. Here was a major difference with Sunday, we had a striker the opposition were afraid of and couldn''t ignore in terms of their own shape.

Maddison''s free kicks are another key weapon for us this season, strategies will need to be defined and improved around creative running patterns and attacking angles from his deliveries. Very late, deep runners must be employed.

One of the tactical Changes from Sunday saw Maddison play higher, I suspect to receive and encourage the ''Carrick-lite'' link pass and for us to be more more threatening offensively as a consequence. Actually we were more threatening simply by having Oliveira and Wes on the pitch (less high-press, pigeon-chasing, more quality and goal-threat intention). The price of Maddison''s more advanced role was no Carousel or anything much resembling it. The maths plus-minus equation in plain sight. You cannot have it all.

There was no outlet ball from Goalkeeper possession, no 4th man option joining the split (2 not 3) centre backs and Reed. Two high split strikers from QPR was thus enough to eliminate the entire Carousel option and anything it might lead to, protect or create.

My view is that being central to the play, dictating the tempo, being a player others look for, having expectation from coaches, teammates and stands is what drives Maddison. Playing him higher, nearer to a 10 role sees him more reliant on others to provide him the ball, instead he is the one capable of learning the Carrick ball that is so fundamental. When he moved deeper in the second half we played better.

There were positive tactical consequences from the changes. Vrancic is more physical, he wins more aerial balls and imposes himself more physically on the opposition. He needs to do this however because we don''t have the ball so much. Chicken and egg. He can pick a pass, though the midfield was generally less tightly deployed, more spaces were exploited by the opposition centrally and the intention to generate increased action wider largely failed. Wide players inevitably expose other areas and can be easily isolated, particularly if they do not naturally drift inside and link midfield play (especially when play is not generally lending itself to channel-running opportunities). Josh is an incredibly dangerous player who looked lost, isolated and a bit forlorn for much of the game, seeing little of the ball (vid Maddison needs) in the fairly static 4-1-4-1.

(As an aside, when playing wide he instinctively favours the front post driven cross. Strikers must make the near post run across the goalkeeper when he drives into the box).

I retain my view (as a striker and striking coach) that Josh is a forward and not a winger. His runs, movement shapes and intention on ball all clearly indicate to me that he should play more centrally (or along a front 3 type shape). Played wide he tactically and mentally drifts out of games, often then trying too much when he then does get it or being slightly caught (almost) daydreaming. He is not a big tracker of opposition runs, nor an especially good strategic reader of the game. He is a single minded forward player who loves to run, beat players, shoot and drive towards goal. Wonderful, put him in a 9 or 10 shirt. He is his own man.

In conclusion it is normal that fans went home happier last night than Sunday. Being a (welcome) pragmatist, Farke will stress how it is ''all about the result'' just as it was ''all about the performance'' on Sunday.

Winners and great sportsmen do have it both ways. That is what facilitates and nurtures their granite-like mindsets.

In his office, on his tactics board, Farke will know that the difference between Sunday and Wednesday was as stark in terms of philosophy and approach as it was result. In his perfect world he might well have preferred the outcome from QPR to have matched the (vast majority of the) Sunderland game in order define and begin to enshrine the philosophy.

The fearful may well be more comforted that the doctrine is not fixed however, that perhaps - after all - the Germans really do just know how to win. Even on a wet Tuesday in Rotherham or a nervous Wednesday in Norwich.

Me? I just think we were a bit lucky 😊

Parma

[Nuff Said 5,089]

"It is very early for Mummy to be taking away the spinach and putting McDonalds back on the plate however."

Brilliant! Me, I love spinach.

[westcoastcanary 173]

Parma wrote: " .... perhaps - after all - the Germans really do just know how to win."

Or maybe they can just do everything better than us, even play better English football ........

I like spinach too [:''(]

[Parma Ham's gone mouldy 2,219]

Josh Murphy:

“I think he’s a great manager, and he’s helping me a lot. He’s helping me redefine my game and helping me play different positions like wing-back and playing in the pocket, playing as a striker..."

Parma

[Horse Renoir 1]

He''s playing as a second striker at the moment isn''t he? Like where Watkins was playing before, in the hole but not being asked to do the same job a Hoolahan/Naismith/Pritchard would be asked to do. My one concern with him playing there is I can''t recall ever seeing him play a good through ball before, his final ball is hit and miss from wider positions anyway and playing an incisive ball forward through the oppo defence is even harder.

I''ve always thought his shot is better than his passing/crossing but I keep seeing him crowded out by the opposition when trying to drive into the box directly, it looks like he has the attributes to be a forward, I''m not sure I''ve seen him really translate that into the pitch yet, he had a decent second half yesterday but hopefully he improves more in that position.

[Parma Ham's gone mouldy 2,219]

Further to the issue of attacking width, crosses and the plus-minus equation.

Chelsea locked down the centre of the pitch yesterday with a tight defensive midfield 3, playing a version of 3-5-1-1 that we may increasingly see at Norwich.

The (only) space was wider, forcing Spurs to attack from these areas - which many like to see - and as a corollary opening up midfield spaces in their own defensive shape, risking penetrative counters from the opposition.

Spurs made 23 crosses, with all the top level quality they possess and Harry Kane as the excellent striking target.

Of the 23 crosses, a total of 2 reached a white head in the entirety of the game.

Not definitive of course, though indicative of some of the arguments outlined here about what ''feels'' attacking, when in reality it may be a far lower success percentage than perceived.

A more open (and advanced) midfield must also create greater spaces between the players, increasing the percentage difficulty of each connecting pass, further increasing the likelihood of error. Reed''s passing error yesterday and more than one of the goals conceded were due to a stretched (attacking) midfield somewhat isolating itself from each other, riskier passes being attempted and being picked off by the opposition.

Chelsea identified that they were inferior (!) in midfield and locked down the spaces. Conte did not ''we play our own game'' in any way. With all the money in the world tactical compromises were made and crosses remained a low rent option.

Parma

[lappinitup 629]

[quote user="Parma Hams gone mouldy"]

Of the 23 crosses, a total of 2 reached a white head in the entirety of the game.[/quote]Just proves black players are better in the air then. [:S][;)]

[Parma Ham's gone mouldy 2,219]

August 2017 - pattern of play intentions.

Parma

[Bill 1,788]

Stands back and admires the forsesight

Who will be this person ?

JR* has already discussed transfer targets with DM. He has also opened lines of press communication. He is plenipotentiary.

what will he do ?

""He won’t be out there coaching every day. It’ll be more player recruitment" 

* Joe Royle (who he ?)

[quote user="YankeeCanary"]

I must confess that I have had difficulty with Parma''s input

previously. One notable assertion from him this season was that draws

are as good as wins. On this thread I''m afraid Parma gets lost by being

preoccupied with his own maize of flowery verbiage and, having made the

point that no industry other than football would entrust former players

to management oversight roles, then fails to define what skills are

required for a candidate fitting into a new management structure to

ensure better oversight. How does such a candidate know when to pull the

trigger or put the gun in the holster for another day?  

[/quote]

[Parma Ham's gone mouldy 2,219]

We thus understood the necessity for a new Management Structure, though were not brave enough, far-sighted enough or perhaps poor enough to be forced to implement it.

Parma

[king canary 7,579]

Parma

I like your posts.

However you digging up all your old threads in a masturbatory orgy of self congratulation is a bit much.

[FenwayFrank 2,456]

😀

[Mr Apples 1,317]

"...a masturbatory orgy of self congratulation is a bit much."A big hand for Parma?Apples